EDIT: Let’s cool it with the downvotes, dudes. We’re not out to cut funding to your black hole detection chamber or revoke the degrees of chiropractors just because a couple of us don’t believe in it, okay? Chill out, participate with the prompt and continue with having a nice day. I’m sure almost everybody has something to add.

  • chocolatine@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    11 months ago

    You can read the dawn of everything book which is a very interesting take at a lot of those assumptions which are indeed false. This book goes deep into the ideological bias scientists have when interpreting evidence.

    • balderdash@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      the ideological bias scientists have when interpreting evidence

      Surprised you didn’t get downvoted here. It’s like if you tell people science is done by humans and humans arre flawed people flip out and call you a science-denier.

      • Zozano@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        One of the first things you’re taught to understand when interpreting data is that you have a bias. It is impossible not to have a bias.

        Take for example: 1+1=2. Is it an extremely simple equation, or a decades long mathematical pursuit to establish certainty?

        Our bias tells us we can confidently assert such simple statements, but the truth is, unless we spend an agonising length of time understanding the most insignificant and asinine facts, we NEED biases to understand the world.

        The point of understanding we have biases is to think more critically about which ones are most obviously wrong.